music , mind , thought and emotion


There is not a society on this planet, nor probably ever has been, which is without some form of musical expression, often closely linked with rythm and dance. My question is less concentrated on the latter two however.
What I am pondering boils down to:
What is music and what does it do to us
Why do we differentiate music from random noise so clearly and yet can pick up certain samples within that noise as musical.
By listening to music, we find some perhaps interesting, some which we would call musical. What differentiates "musical music" from "ordinary music" and this again from "noise"?
In a more general sense again:
If music has impact on us, what is the nature of our receptors for it. Or better: Who, what are we, that music can do to us what it does?
What would be the nature of a system, which practically all of us would agree upon, that it imparts musicality best?
And finally, if such a sytem would exist, can this quality be measured?
detlof
Ohn: thank you for the article.

Active/receptive perception - the moment of interpretation - is not the same as memory engrainment, or the storing of the interpretive impression of that moment. I have no doubt that memory data is stored in nueral pathways/centers etc in a material sense, but again, this material condition subsequent is not necessarily determinitive of the process of original discernment. In other words, because memory is found in matter does not mean necessarily that matter causes the original creative thought.

Most new evidence shows, and the pattern of dicovery is quite revealing, that thought produces movement of nueronal cells. Its being called neuroplasticity. Prior to 1989 or thereabouts, scientists maintained the old idea that the brain never changed, which of course fit nicely with their assumption that brain matter determines thought (ie only the material exists as assumption). This, of course, becomes interesting because the causal sequence of matter-to-thought maintained by science is being eroded in favor of a modified model where consciousness is primary to brain matter. This model would also be consistent with the memory being subsequent and easily located in matter.

Of course, if you only want to watch billiard balls bounce off each other to discern truth - even denying the mind's existence, the same mind that came up with your scientific method, because, underneath it all, you are so attached to the power of that same mind over matter - then you are not too crazy about hearing that interpretive consciousness is casually primary to matter. Because, it means that the mind that science has tried so hard for two hundred years to discount is, even by their emerging measures, existant and primary.

The question then becomes, what is forming in brain matter when you are percieving but not thinking. What mind do you form in deeply listening to music?

Hmmmm. Karmic overtones from the dicoveries of science. Geez, that science ended up proving the mind, implying that you reap the brain matter that your perceptions sow, do you think that's a coincidence?

BIG Hmmmm....

Yes, I can hear the minds of materialsts everywhere scampering as we speak, saying that if a monkey writes to infinity he's bound to write a poem, stretching their probablistic assumptions to a tight thread, nearly breaking in their effort TO STAY WHERE THEY ARE.

But here's a BIG question: if thought arisement engrains brain matter, and matter is responsive to thought in that regard, then what is engrained in the mind that denies the mind and says only matter exists? Isn't the attachment to staying where you are an implicit denial of what you might become; a denial of future possibilities?

A man said, "Argue for your limitations and sure enough they are yours..."

You create your world, and the limits of it, and what you will see; you choose how deeply you want to listen to the Music. Of course, you may have to "take a step into the dark (the chaos you precieve)" [Saint John of the Cross]

But, perhaps, the dark-ness is only the limits of possibilities that you have already chosen...
Ohn: when I said "you" or "your" I didn't mean you personally; just a foil, of which i thank you in advance for your indulgence.
Oh, how painful, one on top of the mountain; nowhere to go but down. Can't walk down because, one's back to square one. Can't jump down because it means an end to live, path, all that times and knowledges are wasted. The only way is to jump up. But where? The door is right in front, yet far away; far away yet, like right at the nose. I'd felt the pain/beauty. :-). I also felt. ;-).

When the mind (internal) rises, everything (external) rises; when everything (external) rises, the mind (internal) rises. When the mind falls, everything falls; when everything falls, the mind falls. When is it end? When is this dualism end? And How?

Twl, "Koan" = "koh'an/ n" is a Chinese pronounciation, but it means "to ponder".

It's Friday, time to jam people.
6ch: is the flag moving, or the mind watching it?

If neither, what is move-ing?

If both, what is move-ing?

How many paths are there up the mountain?

If infinite, what is one's point of reference to say "path"? Where is the center?

The Zen you have on the top of the moutain is the Zen you brought up. If you are attached to the "top", or "thought" or "matter", however, sometimes you don't see this...

If don't see this, what are "you" seeing?

If see this, what are you *seeing*?

The wild geese do not intend to cast
their reflection
The water has no mind to receive their images.